麻醉相关严重发病率的一套新指标与共识定义:范围审查后的德尔菲研究

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111626
{"title":"麻醉相关严重发病率的一套新指标与共识定义:范围审查后的德尔菲研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>Monitoring anaesthesia-related severe morbidity constitutes a good opportunity for assessing quality and safety of care in anaesthesia. Several recent studies attempted to describe and define indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with limitations: no formal experts' consensus process, overlap with surgical complications, no consensual definitions, inapplicability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to provide a set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity based on outcomes and using clinically useful consensual definitions.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>1/ scoping review of studies published in 2010–2021 on outcomes of anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with different definitions;</p><p>2/ International experts' consensus on indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions using a Delphi process.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>After including 142 studies, 68 outcomes for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity were identified and organized in 34 indicators divided into 8 categories (cardiovascular, respiratory, sepsis, renal, neurological, medication error, digestive and others). The indicators were then submitted to the experts. After 2 Delphi rounds, the 26 indicators retained by the experts with their corresponding consensual definition were: acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism and thrombosis, bronchospasm or laryngospasm, pneumonia, inhalation pneumonitis, pneumothorax, difficult or impossible intubation, atelectasis, self-extubation or accidental extubation, sepsis or septic shock, transient ischemic attack, postoperative confusion or delirium, post-puncture headache, medication error, liver failure, unplanned intensive care unit admission, multiple-organ failure.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study provides a new consensual set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions, that could be easily applied in clinical practice as in research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002551/pdfft?md5=be8df1715f6454db5d6d33e288b2039a&pid=1-s2.0-S0952818024002551-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New set of indicators with consensus definition for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity: A scoping review followed by a Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>Monitoring anaesthesia-related severe morbidity constitutes a good opportunity for assessing quality and safety of care in anaesthesia. Several recent studies attempted to describe and define indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with limitations: no formal experts' consensus process, overlap with surgical complications, no consensual definitions, inapplicability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to provide a set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity based on outcomes and using clinically useful consensual definitions.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>1/ scoping review of studies published in 2010–2021 on outcomes of anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with different definitions;</p><p>2/ International experts' consensus on indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions using a Delphi process.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>After including 142 studies, 68 outcomes for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity were identified and organized in 34 indicators divided into 8 categories (cardiovascular, respiratory, sepsis, renal, neurological, medication error, digestive and others). The indicators were then submitted to the experts. After 2 Delphi rounds, the 26 indicators retained by the experts with their corresponding consensual definition were: acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism and thrombosis, bronchospasm or laryngospasm, pneumonia, inhalation pneumonitis, pneumothorax, difficult or impossible intubation, atelectasis, self-extubation or accidental extubation, sepsis or septic shock, transient ischemic attack, postoperative confusion or delirium, post-puncture headache, medication error, liver failure, unplanned intensive care unit admission, multiple-organ failure.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study provides a new consensual set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions, that could be easily applied in clinical practice as in research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002551/pdfft?md5=be8df1715f6454db5d6d33e288b2039a&pid=1-s2.0-S0952818024002551-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002551\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024002551","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的监测与麻醉相关的严重发病率是评估麻醉护理质量和安全的良机。最近的一些研究试图描述和定义与麻醉相关的严重发病率指标,但存在一些局限性:没有正式的专家共识程序、与手术并发症重叠、没有一致的定义、不适用于临床实践。本研究旨在提供一套基于结果并使用临床上有用的共识定义的麻醉相关严重发病率指标。设计1/对2010-2021年发表的关于麻醉相关严重发病率结果的研究进行范围综述,并采用不同的定义;2/采用德尔菲流程,就麻醉相关严重发病率指标及具体定义达成国际专家共识。主要结果在纳入 142 项研究后,确定了 68 项与麻醉相关的严重发病结果,并将其归纳为 34 项指标,分为 8 个类别(心血管、呼吸、败血症、肾脏、神经、用药错误、消化和其他)。然后将这些指标提交给专家。经过两轮德尔菲讨论后,专家们保留了 26 项指标,并给出了相应的一致定义:急性心力衰竭、心源性休克、急性呼吸窘迫综合征、肺栓塞和肺血栓形成、支气管痉挛或喉头痉挛、肺炎、吸入性肺炎、气胸、插管困难或无法插管、肺不张、自行拔管或意外拔管、脓毒症或脓毒性休克、一过性缺血性发作、术后意识模糊或谵妄、穿刺后头痛、用药错误、肝功能衰竭、意外入住重症监护室、多器官功能衰竭。结论这项研究为麻醉相关严重发病率提供了一套新的共识指标,并给出了具体的定义,易于在临床实践和研究中应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
New set of indicators with consensus definition for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity: A scoping review followed by a Delphi study

Study objective

Monitoring anaesthesia-related severe morbidity constitutes a good opportunity for assessing quality and safety of care in anaesthesia. Several recent studies attempted to describe and define indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with limitations: no formal experts' consensus process, overlap with surgical complications, no consensual definitions, inapplicability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to provide a set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity based on outcomes and using clinically useful consensual definitions.

Design

1/ scoping review of studies published in 2010–2021 on outcomes of anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with different definitions;

2/ International experts' consensus on indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions using a Delphi process.

Main results

After including 142 studies, 68 outcomes for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity were identified and organized in 34 indicators divided into 8 categories (cardiovascular, respiratory, sepsis, renal, neurological, medication error, digestive and others). The indicators were then submitted to the experts. After 2 Delphi rounds, the 26 indicators retained by the experts with their corresponding consensual definition were: acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism and thrombosis, bronchospasm or laryngospasm, pneumonia, inhalation pneumonitis, pneumothorax, difficult or impossible intubation, atelectasis, self-extubation or accidental extubation, sepsis or septic shock, transient ischemic attack, postoperative confusion or delirium, post-puncture headache, medication error, liver failure, unplanned intensive care unit admission, multiple-organ failure.

Conclusions

This study provides a new consensual set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions, that could be easily applied in clinical practice as in research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
期刊最新文献
Benefit of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine on cognitive function following noncardiac surgery: An updated meta-analysis. Esketamine in postoperative recovery: Reliable for negative emotional relief, ambiguous for cognitive function. National trends in perioperative epidural analgesia use for surgical patients Response to comment on: “Effect of remimazolam versus propofol on hypotension after anesthetic induction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized controlled trial” Letter to the editor regarding “Effect of remimazolam versus propofol on hypotension after anesthetic induction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized controlled trial”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1